← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/42727/2014disposed of

Nachhattar Singh v. State Of Punjab

2015-02-24Mr Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain3 pages

-1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 1.

Date of Decision: 24.02.2015.

Nachhattar Singh .......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ......Respondent 2.

Harjinder Pal .......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ......Respondent 3.

Amarjit Singh and another .......Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab ......Respondent 4.

Garish Kumar .......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:

Mr. G.S.Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioners.

(In CRM-M Nos. 42727 of 2014, 41829 of 2014 and 1438 of 2015) Mr. K.D.S.Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner.

(In CRM-M No. 1634 of 2015).

-2Mr. V.P.S.Sidhu, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

**** SABINA, J.

Vide this order, above mentioned four petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 183 dated 14.10.2014 under Section 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Navi Baradari, Jalandhar.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from Sub Inspector Vir Singh, has submitted that petitioners have joined investigation after the grant of interim bail by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that in fact, Ishwar Dutt was the owner of the property in question and the same was inherited by his three sons namely Om Parkash (father of the complainant), Ram Lubhaya and Ram Parkash. Ram Parkash filed a suit for possession by way of partition as Om Parkash was in exclusive possession of the property in question. The suit filed by Ram Parkash was decreed in the year 1999 vide Annexure P-4. Appeal filed against the said decision of the Trial Court, was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment/decree dated 7.1.2002 (Annexure P-5) and the said decision had gained finality. Ram Parkash had executed a power of attorney in favour of his brother Ram Lubhaya qua his share. After the death of Ram Lubhaya, his sons became

-3owners qua his share. Sons of Ram Lubhaya executed the agreement to sell in favour of petitioner Nachattar Singh. Petitioner Garish Kumar is the son of Ram Lubhaya who had executed the sale deed in favour of Nachhattar Singh qua his share whereas petitioners Amarjit Singh and Manjit Singh had attested the said document. Harjinder Pal petitioner had drafted the sale deed. Nachhattar Singh has already filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell. Complaint in question has been filed by the son of Om Parkash, although, the agreement to sell in question, executed by the sons of Ram Lubhaya, does not relate to the share of Om Parkash. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the fact that the petitioners have joined investigation, interim bail granted by this Court to the petitioners, is made absolute.

All the petitions stand disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) JUDGE February 24, 2015 Gurpreet